- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200054 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: BASAYYA S/O LATE RAMAYYA TAVOOR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AINOLLI TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 307. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: KALAVATI D/O LATE RAMAYYA TAVOOR, W/O BASAYYA NASHI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHIMALKHEDA, TQ: CHITAGUPPA, DIST: BIDAR – 585 227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND UNDER ORDER 41, RULE-1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINCHOLI IN OS NO.32/2022 DATED 02.11.2023 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA) Assailing the judgment and decree in O.S No.32/2022 dated 02.11.2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chincholi (hereinafter referred to ‘the trial court’, for short), whereby the suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) for partition and separate possession was decreed granting 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties, the defendant is before this Court in the present Regular First Appeal. 2. Parties herein are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 3. Suit for partition and separate possession filed contending that the plaintiff and defendant are children of Ramayya Tavoor and Siddamma. The said Ramayya was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is further averred that after the death of father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant are the only legal heirs and they have succeeded to the suit properties as joint owners. 4. Upon service of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement, inter alia, denying the plaintiff’s status as a co-parcener and contending that Ramayya and Siddamma are his parents and after his birth within one year, his father Ramayya died. After the death of Ramayya, Siddamma married one Mahantayya Math and from their marriage four children are born and plaintiff is the child born from the marriage of Siddamma and Mahantayya. The sum and substance of the written statement was that the plaintiff is the daughter of Siddamma, however she was born from another person, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 allegedly married to Siddamma after the death of Ramayya. 5. The trial court by appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence was of the opinion that the plaintiff is the daughter of Siddamma and Ramayya. The trial court also found defendant’s claim that Siddamma had remarried another man after the death of Ramayya and that the plaintiff was born from that marriage was not supported by any credible evidence. The trial court on assessing the evidence and in the absence of any material to disprove the entries in the birth and school records, the court held the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s birth as the daughter of Ramayya and Siddamma and by the judgment and decree held that the plaintiff is entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties. 6. Heard Sri B.K. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Ramayya, but only the daughter of Siddamma born from another man whom Siddamma allegedly married after Rammayya’s death. Hence, it is argued that the plaintiff is not a coparcener in the joint family and not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. It is further contended that the trial court erred in law and fact by relying solely on the documentary evidence without properly appreciating the defence of the defendant and the decree passed by the trial court needs to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifying the judgment and decree of the trial court contends that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ramayya and Siddamma, supported by the documents which mentioned Bassayya as her father. It is contended that no materials are produced by the defendant to discard the material evidence produced by the plaintiff. The initial burden which was cast upon the plaintiff is proved by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 producing documentary evidence while the specific assertion that Siddamma has entered into a second marriage and the plaintiff is the child born from another person is not established by the defendant and the contention raised by the defendant is just an assertion without any corroborative evidence. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the trial court is justified in decreeing the suit and awarding half share to the plaintiff?” 10. As stated supra, the plaintiff claims that she is biological daughter of Ramayya and Siddamma while the defendant disputes the relationship of the plaintiff with that of the defendant and asserts that Siddamma though is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant but the plaintiff is born to Siddamma from a marriage with another person and is not born to Ramayya, the father of the defendant. In order to substantiate the claim of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 plaintiff, she has examined herself as P.W.1 and marked documents at Ex.P1 to 18. Ex.P1 to P6 are the Record of Rights pertaining to the suit schedule properties wherein the suit properties were standing in the name of Ramayya and after his death the name of Basayya (defendant) is mutated. Ex.P7 is the Mutation Register Extract, Ex.P8 is the School Admission Certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Ainolli, Ex.P9 is the School Admission Certificate of the Government Primary School, Ainolli, Ex.P10 is the Wedding Invitation, Exs.P11 to P18 are the marriage photographs. Ex.P.8 is the School Admission Certificate of the plaintiff which discloses that plaintiff is the daughter of Ramayya Swamy and she was born on 01.06.1958. Ex.P9 is the School Admission Certificate of the defendant which shows that the defendant is son of Ramayya. P.W.2 is the other witness who has been examined by the plaintiff and he categorically deposed that Rammayya died when defendant was 5-6 years old. He also deposed that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 Siddamma after three years of the death of Ramayya had eloped. He categorically deposed that plaintiff was three years old when Ramayya died. From Ex.P8 and P9 what can be gathered is that the plaintiff is younger to defendant. 11. The defendant examined himself as DW-1. He examined three witnesses as DW-2 to DW-4. DW-1 admitted the contents of Ex.P8 specifically deposing that at Ex.P8, the father’s name of the plaintiff is shown as Ramayya. DW-2 deposed that defendant was a year’s old when his mother Siddamma left him and that he is the only son of Ramayya and was raised by one Gangamma. DW-3 is Gangamma who speaks about the relationship of plaintiff and defendant and deposed that Siddamma had married one person by name Mahantayya when the defendant was two years old and that she has taken care of the defendant. DW-4 is another witness deposed that he knows plaintiff and defendant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 12. The defendant’s specific contention is that when he was one year old, his father died and Siddamma had married one Mahantayya and had four children of which plaintiff is one of the daughters. The documents produced by the plaintiffs and the evidence of P.W.2 clearly establishes that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ramayya and Siddamma while on the other hand, the defendant has failed to produce any credible evidence to substantiate his claim that plaintiff was born out of Siddamma’s second marriage. When the defendant contends that his father, Late Ramayya died shortly after his birth in the year 1948, and the plaintiff was born much later, is not his sister, but is the daughter of Siddamma from another relationship entered into after the death of Ramayya, the defendant, has failed to produce any documentary to prove either the exact date of death of Ramayya or a proof regarding the plaintiff being born to Siddamma from her remarriage. Further, the oral evidence submitted by the defendant would not be of much helpful in the absence of any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2933-DB RFA No. 200054 of 2024 documentary evidence to prove that the plaintiff was born out of a relationship of Siddamma with another person and not with that of Ramayya. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence that there is no perversity or material irregularity in the judgment of the trial court and the findings are based on cogent reasoning and valid evidence and warrants no interference by this court. Accordingly, the point raised for consideration is answered and we pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:NI